We live in a society that views men, including teens, as being stronger, more dominant and more predatory than women. Of course that's not always the case, but it goes towards explaining why some people don't take male victims of female perpetrators as seriously. Male victims in their teens and upwards in age, anyway. I don't agree, btw and think women are just as capable of grooming and manipulating kids.
We live in a society that views men, including teens, as being stronger, more dominant and more predatory than women. Of course that's not always the case, but it goes towards explaining why some people don't take male victims of female perpetrators as seriously. Male victims in their teens and upwards in age, anyway. I don't agree, btw and think women are just as capable of grooming and manipulating kids.
No i get that but its the way its joked about that i found a bit more surprising if not a little shocking really. If this was a 14 year old gay boy and a 44 year old male offender there would absolutely be page after page of vitriol and bile posted but instead we get "lucky boy" posts.
I know its been mentioned but since a lot of posters seem cool with it at what age is it ok for the woman to abuse the child ? 14 is fine, how about 11 ? i'm guessing 5 isn't so what age are we going for ?
If this was a 14 year old gay boy and a 44 year old male offender there would absolutely be page after page of vitriol and bile posted but instead we get "lucky boy" posts.
Well exactly.
There are 4 combinations that are possible, all of them should attract the same sentence, even though they wouldn't attract the same outrage.
In order, and assuming the offence was identical (I'll not go into how that's possible in some cases, necessarily, but it obviously is):
A 44 year old man with a 14 year old boy probably gets the harshest sentence and the most outrage.
A 44 year old man with a 14 year old girl would be next, might get less outrage (depending on audience) than the next one.
A 44 year old woman with a 14 year old boy. Almost no outrage, as demonstrated, and probably tied for lowest sentence.
A 44 year old woman with a 14 year old girl. Probably 3rd in outrage, but depends on who you asked. Possibly gets the least sentence, depending on the exact circumstances.
There are 4 combinations that are possible, all of them should attract the same sentence, even though they wouldn't attract the same outrage.
In order, and assuming the offence was identical (I'll not go into how that's possible in some cases, necessarily, but it obviously is):
A 44 year old man with a 14 year old boy probably gets the harshest sentence and the most outrage.
A 44 year old man with a 14 year old girl would be next, might get less outrage (depending on audience) than the next one.
A 44 year old woman with a 14 year old boy. Almost no outrage, as demonstrated, and probably tied for lowest sentence.
A 44 year old woman with a 14 year old girl. Probably 3rd in outrage, but depends on who you asked. Possibly gets the least sentence, depending on the exact circumstances.
I accept that sentencing can be influenced by a host of issues , position of trust for example being just one amongst many and reporting many not cover these specific issues. For me its the general response of posters who joke and find humour in child abuse who would absolutely never do nor probably even consider it in many of the other scenarios youve posted.
As much as this is a disturbing crime...it HAS to be said that there are differences in gender that change things in these cases. I'm a pretty "equality" type of guy, but even I can see that men and women/boys and girls are different in attitude to sex. It is just hardwired into most of our personalities that girls at that age are way more wary around sex compared to guys to whom sex, even up until the age of 20 is no big deal, the earlier the better to "pop your cherry" etc etc. Not to mention it is pretty natural why there are these differences considering women have to live with the physical consequences of rape whereas men clearly are the "givers" so to speak.
But every case should be judged on its own merits. Me at that age? Could I have truly stood up in a court and pretended that I was traumatised if that had happened to me? I don't think so tbh.
As much as this is a disturbing crime...it HAS to be said that there are differences in gender that change things in these cases. I'm a pretty "equality" type of guy, but even I can see that men and women/boys and girls are different in attitude to sex. It is just hardwired into most of our personalities that girls at that age are way more wary around sex compared to guys to whom sex, even up until the age of 20 is no big deal, the earlier the better to "pop your cherry" etc etc. Not to mention it is pretty natural why there are these differences considering women have to live with the physical consequences of rape whereas men clearly are the "givers" so to speak.
But every case should be judged on its own merits. Me at that age? Could I have truly stood up in a court and pretended that I was traumatised if that had happened to me? I don't think so tbh.
I'm really not sure about this at all. The idea that boys don't feel coerced, or would 'leap at the chance' or 'probably wouldn't be traumatised', is just that, some 'cultural' idea.
A fourteen year old boy is a child with all the vulnerabilities and confusion a child commonly has in these circumstances.
And even if he 'enjoyed' it, how does that make it okay? Some girls think they are in great relationship with their paedophile partners and 'enjoy' it too, it DOESN'T make it okay at all.
If I was the mother of that boy I would be terribly angry and distressed.
And whilst I HOPE he's not upset or affected too much there are NO guarantees that this hasn't damaged and upset the child at all.
Horrible behaviour from this woman - who should have been jailed.
As much as this is a disturbing crime...it HAS to be said that there are differences in gender that change things in these cases. I'm a pretty "equality" type of guy, but even I can see that men and women/boys and girls are different in attitude to sex. It is just hardwired into most of our personalities that girls at that age are way more wary around sex compared to guys to whom sex, even up until the age of 20 is no big deal, the earlier the better to "pop your cherry" etc etc. Not to mention it is pretty natural why there are these differences considering women have to live with the physical consequences of rape whereas men clearly are the "givers" so to speak.
But every case should be judged on its own merits. Me at that age? Could I have truly stood up in a court and pretended that I was traumatised if that had happened to me? I don't think so tbh.
often a female victim can believe they are a 'willing participant' and not traumatised at all, look at the teacher who received a substantial prison sentence for running away with the girl who continued to believe she 'loved him'. You only have to look at cases of historical abuse where victims arent coming forward for decades and only then realising the damage that's been done.
I'm really not sure about this at all. The idea that boys don't feel coerced, or would 'leap at the chance' or 'probably wouldn't be traumatised', is just that, some 'cultural' idea.
A fourteen year old boy is a child with all the vulnerabilities and confusion a child commonly has in these circumstances.
And even if he 'enjoyed' it, how does that make it okay? Some girls think they are in great relationship with their paedophile partners and 'enjoy' it too, it DOESN'T make it okay at all.
If I was the mother of that boy I would be terribly angry and distressed.
And whilst I HOPE he's not upset or affected too much there are NO guarantees that this hasn't damaged and upset the child at all.
Horrible behaviour from this woman - who should have been jailed.
Indeed. There are lots of things we think are a good idea when we're kids, but the law sets age limits because kids might not make the best choices and regret it later in life.
Take smoking for example. Kids might enjoy that, but we set an age limit, because although they might think it's a good idea at the time, they may come to regret it later.
There's not much point in an age of consent if society is saying "well it doesn't really apply to boys". The whole point of the law is that society has judged that under-age kids don't make good judgements in this area.
In fact you could reverse this whole thing and make an argument that it's worse for a woman to have sex with a boy, as they tend to mature later than girls.
I think that whenever its a man a general picture of aggression is introduced and sold 100% of time because thats what men have that is abused in order to get something in these cases.
Women have especially in current society desired to be treated equally and getting the higher paid jobs, as well as higher management positions. I'd love to see them treated the same in these circumstances and have something to say about this.
But at the same time it does come down to men standing up and saying something in these cases because how likely is it for women to say something against themselves when in a society where its already hard; like for instance when car insurance was cheaper for women than men, its aggression and the thrill seekers that man are that caused this, you couldn't find one female who said that the premium rate should be equalised and women should pay the price. Despite the difference between car insurance and sexual abuse you understand what im saying.
Oh come off of it, are you really saying that when you were a 14 yr old boy and if a 19 year old female came onto you, you would have wanted her done for child abuse or rape?
If a 19 year old Male sleeps with a 14 year old girl tho' it is different imo, the male is abusing the girl. I can't be the only one who thinks that way? Perhaps I am heh
I just don't think a boy would be as emotionally affected as a girl.
What would you be saying if it was a 19 year old man and a 14 year old boy ?
Considering the general acceptance of teenage boys being less mature than girls of their own age it always astonishes me that so many people think it's ok when it's an older woman and a boy.
He is a boy, if a girl can't consent at 14, then he bloody well can't either. It's an out-dated, ridiculous mode of thinking that slaps equality in the face.
He's not a 'lucky boy' he has been taken advantage of by a predatory adult who was trusted and respected within the family. Rolf Harris was just banged up for assault even though there was no full sex, this woman should not be walking free.
Most teenage boys would bang anything if they had the chance. If a reasonably attractive woman came into my bedroom when I was a teenager and proceeded to perform sexual acts on me I'd be thanking the Lord for answering my prayers.
Course it is. It's our social upbringing based on nonsense outdated values about what males are allowed to be that mean people don't see this as a problem or make 'lucky boy' kinds of comments..
Do judges take being drunk into account when sentencing someone? If they do I don't think they should. It's not a valid excuse imo.
No, they don't. Being drunk is not a mitigation.
I don't see the problem here, or why the (rightly) angry mother had to go to the papers (if she did that and it wasn't them chasing her). She should be spending her time putting together an appeal for an Unduly Lenient Sentence.
That would probably fix it, because of the following section:
There must have been some error of principle in the judge's sentence, such that, in the absence of the sentence being altered by the Court, public confidence would be damaged.
With the exception of the usual cavalier posters in DS:GD, some of whom who are present in this thread, I think most people would see the sentence as damaging public confidence so as it's a Crown Court case, and a qualifying offence, it can be referred for review.
I think gender roles and societal expectations make these instances a bit more complex than trying to simply reverse the situation into "What if...?" scenarios and cite double standards.
Thats a slippery slpe you are on there.
Follow that logic back a few decades and all of a sudden women don't have the vote due to 'gender roles and societal expectations'.
When it comes down to it an adult of 44yrs of age had sex with someone of 14.
Remember equality only applies when certain groups want it to apply, you should know this.
Sad but true.
She should rightly be locked away and then put on the Sex Offenders Register but unfortunately men are subject to the Lucky B*stard Syndrome of society whereas teenage girls are delicate flowers who are victims of vile opportunistic abusers, even when they voluntarily run away to France with their married abusers. That teacher went to prison and can never teach again. This woman seems to have avoided even community service at the very least. So, the law doesn't apply to women who sexually abuse teenagers, only the ones who work with men as part of pre-school and primary school sex rings. Guilty by association only, it seems.
Then there is the argument that meant can't be raped, in a statutory sense or otherwise, because all men are sex obsessed and welcome such situations with abject glee.
It is an unfortunate situation but as you say, equality... real equality... is something people claim to want but generally don't. The same people that want equal pay and equal opportunities want to be protected and favoured when it suits them or excused on a selectively applied basis a lot of the time.
Are there any better quality pictures of the woman in question? That picture in The Mirror is too pixelated for me to make a judgement.
What judgement? She is a sex offender. If you're really looking to superficially judge a sex offender's attractiveness based on better quality photos, I think you might want to think about the implications of that. She's a vile human being who abused a minor, she shouldn't be one for the wank bank by any estimation.
Comments
No i get that but its the way its joked about that i found a bit more surprising if not a little shocking really. If this was a 14 year old gay boy and a 44 year old male offender there would absolutely be page after page of vitriol and bile posted but instead we get "lucky boy" posts.
I know its been mentioned but since a lot of posters seem cool with it at what age is it ok for the woman to abuse the child ? 14 is fine, how about 11 ? i'm guessing 5 isn't so what age are we going for ?
Well exactly.
There are 4 combinations that are possible, all of them should attract the same sentence, even though they wouldn't attract the same outrage.
In order, and assuming the offence was identical (I'll not go into how that's possible in some cases, necessarily, but it obviously is):
A 44 year old man with a 14 year old boy probably gets the harshest sentence and the most outrage.
A 44 year old man with a 14 year old girl would be next, might get less outrage (depending on audience) than the next one.
A 44 year old woman with a 14 year old boy. Almost no outrage, as demonstrated, and probably tied for lowest sentence.
A 44 year old woman with a 14 year old girl. Probably 3rd in outrage, but depends on who you asked. Possibly gets the least sentence, depending on the exact circumstances.
You'd have to wonder if those same children should be left in her care...
I accept that sentencing can be influenced by a host of issues , position of trust for example being just one amongst many and reporting many not cover these specific issues. For me its the general response of posters who joke and find humour in child abuse who would absolutely never do nor probably even consider it in many of the other scenarios youve posted.
But every case should be judged on its own merits. Me at that age? Could I have truly stood up in a court and pretended that I was traumatised if that had happened to me? I don't think so tbh.
I'm really not sure about this at all. The idea that boys don't feel coerced, or would 'leap at the chance' or 'probably wouldn't be traumatised', is just that, some 'cultural' idea.
A fourteen year old boy is a child with all the vulnerabilities and confusion a child commonly has in these circumstances.
And even if he 'enjoyed' it, how does that make it okay? Some girls think they are in great relationship with their paedophile partners and 'enjoy' it too, it DOESN'T make it okay at all.
If I was the mother of that boy I would be terribly angry and distressed.
And whilst I HOPE he's not upset or affected too much there are NO guarantees that this hasn't damaged and upset the child at all.
Horrible behaviour from this woman - who should have been jailed.
often a female victim can believe they are a 'willing participant' and not traumatised at all, look at the teacher who received a substantial prison sentence for running away with the girl who continued to believe she 'loved him'. You only have to look at cases of historical abuse where victims arent coming forward for decades and only then realising the damage that's been done.
Indeed. There are lots of things we think are a good idea when we're kids, but the law sets age limits because kids might not make the best choices and regret it later in life.
Take smoking for example. Kids might enjoy that, but we set an age limit, because although they might think it's a good idea at the time, they may come to regret it later.
There's not much point in an age of consent if society is saying "well it doesn't really apply to boys". The whole point of the law is that society has judged that under-age kids don't make good judgements in this area.
In fact you could reverse this whole thing and make an argument that it's worse for a woman to have sex with a boy, as they tend to mature later than girls.
Women have especially in current society desired to be treated equally and getting the higher paid jobs, as well as higher management positions. I'd love to see them treated the same in these circumstances and have something to say about this.
But at the same time it does come down to men standing up and saying something in these cases because how likely is it for women to say something against themselves when in a society where its already hard; like for instance when car insurance was cheaper for women than men, its aggression and the thrill seekers that man are that caused this, you couldn't find one female who said that the premium rate should be equalised and women should pay the price. Despite the difference between car insurance and sexual abuse you understand what im saying.
What would you be saying if it was a 19 year old man and a 14 year old boy ?
He is a boy, if a girl can't consent at 14, then he bloody well can't either. It's an out-dated, ridiculous mode of thinking that slaps equality in the face.
He's not a 'lucky boy' he has been taken advantage of by a predatory adult who was trusted and respected within the family. Rolf Harris was just banged up for assault even though there was no full sex, this woman should not be walking free.
Course it is. It's our social upbringing based on nonsense outdated values about what males are allowed to be that mean people don't see this as a problem or make 'lucky boy' kinds of comments..
He wasn't abused, he got a great "lesson"
It's every male teen's wish
*More stupid musings*
Lucky Git.
why is she still allowed around chidren, as a child sex offender?
Do judges take being drunk into account when sentencing someone? If they do I don't think they should. It's not a valid excuse imo.
It amazes me - middle aged man has sex with daughter's friend, 14, but he was very pissed at the time, so hey ho.
No, they don't. Being drunk is not a mitigation.
I don't see the problem here, or why the (rightly) angry mother had to go to the papers (if she did that and it wasn't them chasing her). She should be spending her time putting together an appeal for an Unduly Lenient Sentence.
That would probably fix it, because of the following section:
With the exception of the usual cavalier posters in DS:GD, some of whom who are present in this thread, I think most people would see the sentence as damaging public confidence so as it's a Crown Court case, and a qualifying offence, it can be referred for review.
Thats a slippery slpe you are on there.
Follow that logic back a few decades and all of a sudden women don't have the vote due to 'gender roles and societal expectations'.
When it comes down to it an adult of 44yrs of age had sex with someone of 14.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/
A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law
So she engaged in non consensual sex with a minor. Sounds like rape to me.
Sad but true.
She should rightly be locked away and then put on the Sex Offenders Register but unfortunately men are subject to the Lucky B*stard Syndrome of society whereas teenage girls are delicate flowers who are victims of vile opportunistic abusers, even when they voluntarily run away to France with their married abusers. That teacher went to prison and can never teach again. This woman seems to have avoided even community service at the very least. So, the law doesn't apply to women who sexually abuse teenagers, only the ones who work with men as part of pre-school and primary school sex rings. Guilty by association only, it seems.
Then there is the argument that meant can't be raped, in a statutory sense or otherwise, because all men are sex obsessed and welcome such situations with abject glee.
It is an unfortunate situation but as you say, equality... real equality... is something people claim to want but generally don't. The same people that want equal pay and equal opportunities want to be protected and favoured when it suits them or excused on a selectively applied basis a lot of the time.
What judgement? She is a sex offender. If you're really looking to superficially judge a sex offender's attractiveness based on better quality photos, I think you might want to think about the implications of that. She's a vile human being who abused a minor, she shouldn't be one for the wank bank by any estimation.